Karnataka High Court
Sri.Padmashekar Jain vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 KARNATAKA 162, AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1523
Bench: Chief Justice, M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 8616/2020 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN :
--------------
Sri. Padmashekar Jain
Aged 53 years
S/o. Sanath Kumar Jain
R/a. Ballodiguttu House
Kavalamudur Village
Kavalakatte Post
Bantwal Taluk
D.K. District - 574 221. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. P.P. Hegde, Adv.)
AND :
-------
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by
The Chief Secretary
2
Department of Mines and
Geology, Khanija Bhavan
5th Floor
Bengaluru - 1.
2. The Deputy Director
Department of Mines
and Geology
1st Floor, Jugal Towers
Mallikatte, Mangalore
Dakshina Kannada District - 575 002.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Dakshina Kannada District
Mangalore - 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, AGA)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned notice dated 22.05.2020 issued by
respondent No. 2 insofar as it pertains to the direction
to the petitioner to immediately stop quarrying in the
leased land is concerned vide Annexure-D and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day
through Video Conferencing, CHIEF JUSTICE passed
the following;
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease on 24th October, 2017 under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 (for short `the said Rules of 1994'). The lease was for a period of 10 years. A notice was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner on 14/18th February, 2020 stating that a spot inspection was conducted on the basis of a complaint and it was found that the quarrying activities were conducted in an area of 0.28 acres outside the leased area. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause within 30 days as to why 4 action should not be taken against him for carrying out quarrying activities outside the leased area. Further, the notice dated 22nd May, 2020 was issued which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition in which reliance was again placed on the spot inspection conducted on 30th January, 2020. The notice further records that stone mining lease area was surveyed through drone and GPS survey, which revealed that without obtaining a licence, the petitioner had conducted the quarrying operations within the leased land and had transported 35,171 Metric Tons of building stones. It is further alleged that drone survey revealed that the quarrying operations were carried out outside the leased area. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.7,46,08,388/-. By the same notice, the petitioner was called upon to stop the quarrying operations.
5
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the drone survey report was not served to the petitioner and in fact, copies of none of the documents relied upon in the impugned notice were served to the petitioner as pointed out in the reply dated 3rd June 2020 filed by the petitioner which is at Annexure E. The learned Additional Government Advocate relied upon the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2020 passed in W.P. No. 18625/2019 and in particular, what is observed in paragraph Nos. 7,8 and 11 of the said judgment and order.
4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional 6 Government Advocate for respondents, the following conclusions can be drawn:
a. Though the notice dated 22nd May, 2020 at Annexure D refers to the drone and GPS survey carried out in April 2019, in the show-cause notice dated 14/18th February 2020, there is not even a reference to any such drone survey. Reliance is placed in the said show cause notice only on the spot inspection conducted on 30th January, 2020.
b. There is nothing placed on record to show that a copy of the spot inspection report/mahazar or a copy of the report of drone and GPS survey were served to the petitioner.
c. No specific amount was mentioned in the show- cause notice dated 14/18th February, 2020 and the amount was quantified for the first time in the notice 7 dated 22nd May 2020 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
d. Presumably, the amount is demanded by way of penalty under sub-rule (3) of Rule 44 of the said Rules of 1994. Obviously penalty cannot be imposed without following the principles of natural justice. There is no provision in the said Rules under which the respondents could have prevented the quarrying operations within the area of the lease so long as the lease is valid and subsisting.
5. Therefore, the action of stopping the mining operations cannot be sustained. The action of demanding the amount under the notice dated 22nd May, 2020 cannot be sustained on the ground of breach of principals of natural justice. Now, coming to the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2020, this was a case where show-cause notice dated 27th December, 8 2018 was not replied by the petitioner and a specific order was passed on the basis of the said show-cause notice on 5th March, 2019. Moreover, the petitioner could not substantiate his specific stand that after receipt of the notice dated 27th December, 2018, he had approached the concerned authorities and produced the relevant documents. It is in the light of the peculiar facts that the Court imposed the condition of deposit of certain amount.
6. In the facts of this writ petition, there is no specific demand mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 14/18th February, 2020. The said notice does not refer to any GPS or drone survey which is the foundation of the demand in the impugned notice dated 22nd May 2020. The elementary principles of natural justice have been violated. Hence, the petition succeeds in part and we pass the following order:
9
i. We direct the respondents to provide a copy of the joint survey report of the survey conducted on 30th January, 2020/copy of mahazar as well as a copy of the report of drone and GPS survey carried out in April 2019;
ii. The copies shall be supplied to the petitioner within a period of 3 weeks from the date on which this order becomes available on the website of this Court;
iii. Within four weeks thereafter, the petitioner will submit a detailed reply to both the notices dealing with the documents supplied to the petitioner;
iv. Within a period of six weeks from the date on which the reply is submitted or within a period of six weeks from the date on which time to submit the reply expires, the Deputy 10 Director shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. v. We make it clear that the demand mentioned in the notice dated 22nd May 2020 shall not be enforced till final order is passed; vi. We also make it clear that the direction to stop the quarrying operations within the leased area shall not operate subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not carry out any quarrying operations outside the leased area. Within two weeks from today, the petitioner shall file a written undertaking to that effect in the office of the Deputy Director;
vii. All contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law;11
viii. Petition stands disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE LRS.